This is a very important concern, but would it have killed the columnist's message to even briefly explain the basis for the ruling against James Risen invoking reporter's privilege? That is a fairly significant piece of the story!

I don't have a problem with prosecuting leakers, but it might be a bit much to go after the reporter who receives the leak. There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers) so it makes sense to have something similar for reporters.

vpb:I don't have a problem with prosecuting leakers, but it might be a bit much to go after the reporter who receives the leak. There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers) so it makes sense to have something similar for reporters.

There's this little thing we call the "First Amendment to the Constitution".

factoryconnection:but would it have killed the columnist's message to even briefly explain the basis for the ruling against James Risen invoking reporter's privilege?

You can read the decision for yourself here, however, the crux of the issue pertaining to the Reporter's Privilege was that the 4th Circuit cited the 1972 Supreme Court Decision Branzburg v. Hayes, which stated that there is no general purpose reporter's privilege arising out of the First Amendment.

There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

I think it's a matter of striking while the iron is hot. The issue is in the news and leaks are money for journalists, and they know that most people will just believe the headline and not research the case.

After reading most of that court decision I seriously doubt that this guy would qualify for protection under any shield law. He wasn't looking out for the public interest, he was cashing in on a crime.

1990, Brian Karem, San Antonio. TV reporter subpoenaed by defense and prosecution; refused to reveal name of individuals who arranged jailhouse interview. Jailed for 13 days. Released when sources came forward.

1990, Libby Averyt, Corpus Christi, Texas. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed for info about jailhouse interview. Jailed over a weekend; released when judge convinced she would never turn over the unpublished information sought.

1990, Tim Roche, Stuart, Fla. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed to reveal source for leaked court order supposed to have been sealed. Jailed briefly, released pending appeal. Later sentenced to 30 days for criminal contempt. Served 18 days in 1993, and was released.

1991, Sid Gaulden, Schuyler Kropf, Cindi Scoppe, Andrew Shain; Columbia, South Carolina. Jailed for eight hours; released for appeal, which they lost, but trial was over. Prosecutors sought unpublished conversations with state senator on trial for corruption.

1991, Felix Sanchez and James Campbell, Houston. Newspaper reporters locked in judges chambers for several hours; had refused to stand in the back of courtroom and identify possible eyewitnesses to crime. Appeal successful through habeas corpus petition.

1994, Lisa Abraham, Warren, Ohio. Newspaper reporter jailed from Jan. 19 to February 10, for refusing to testify before a state grand jury about jailhouse interview.

1996, Bruce Anderson, Ukiah, Calif. Editor of Anderson Valley Independent found in civil contempt, jailed for total of 13 days for refusing to turn over original letter to the editor received from prisoner. After a week, he tried to turn over the letter, but judge refused to believe it was the original because it was typed. After another week, judge finally accepted that the typewritten letter was the original.

1996, David Kidwell, Palm Beach County, Fla.Miami Herald reporter found in criminal contempt, sentenced to 70 days for refusing to testify for prosecution about jailhouse interview. Served 14 days before being released on own recognizance after filing federal habeas corpus petition.

2000, Timothy Crews, Red Bluff, Calif.Sacramento Valley Mirror editor and publisher served a five-day sentence for refusing to reveal his confidential sources in a story involving the sale of an allegedly stolen firearm by a state patrol officer.

2001, Vanessa Leggett, Houston, Texas. Author researching "true crime" book jailed for 168 days by federal judge for refusing to disclose her research and the identities of her sources to a federal grand jury investigating a murder. Leggett was freed only after the term of the grand jury expired. A subsequent grand jury indicted the key suspect in the murder without any need for her testimony. Leggett may again face a subpoena during his murder trial.

2004, Jim Taricani, Providence, R.I. A WJAR television reporter obtained and aired in February 2001 a portion of the videotape showing a Providence city official accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI informant. The tape was sealed evidence in an FBI investigation into corruption by Providence officials, including former Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci Jr. Taricani was subpoenaed, but refused to reveal his source and was found in civil contempt of court. After a failed appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston (1st Cir.), NBC, WJAR's network, paid $85,000 in fines. In November, Taricani was found in criminal contempt of court and a month later, was sentence to six months home confinement. He was granted early release after being confined for four months.

2005, Judith Miller, Washington, D.C.New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to testify against news sources in the investigation into leaks of a CIA operative's name by White House officials. She spent 85 days in jail, and was released when she agreed to provide limited testimony to the grand jury regarding conversations with vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby without revealing her other sources.

2006, Josh Wolf, San Francisco, Calif. Freelance video blogger initially jailed for a month when he refused to turn over a video tape that federal officials said contained footage of protesters damaging a police car. Wolf was released on bail on Sept. 1, but an appeals court panel confirmed the contempt order against him and Wolf returned to jail. He was finally released on April 3, 2007.

Weaver95:Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

Except that that's not what this guy did. He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired. He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge. The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that. This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that. It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

To be clear: he is risking jail for not testifying, not what he has written. He is doing so, supposedly to protect a source, who has been indicted for leaking classified information. Admirable as it may sound, let's not conflate being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify is NOT prosecution for what he has written. It's not the act of writing that has gotten him into a position, but his own actions in regard to a trial and testifying at said trail. He indeed may lose his freedom, but if he does, that's on his own head, and sticking to your principles does sort of have a factor of risk involved. It is an entirely voluntary sort of risk, and an entirely avoidable set of jail time, but he has vowed to not give away his confidential sources, and more power to him for that, but let us not pretend that he is being hounded unmercifully, when he has a very easy out.

Will he risk his good name and reputation? That remains to be seen, but these ARE the risks that investigative journalists take on. He is looking for privilege, and in this case, it has been denied, in regards to national security. You can thank more than just Obama on this particular scene though, since the press has been pretty much rolling over and begging for tummy rubs since 9/11, and while Obama continuing policy to go after those who leak classified material troubles some, it wasn't so much the case when it was Bush simply freezing the press out entirely.

Folks handed the government a LOT of power when it drafted US PATRIOT, and NOW the shoe is on the other foot as a President that folks aren't happy with is using said powers, and reaching back even further into precedent to go after leaks. Perhaps we might want to point fingers a bit at Congress as well as at the DoJ while we're at it. Just a thought.

['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.

If I may be a devil's advocate for a second, does every journalist get full immunity regardless of what they do, solely because they are a journalist? A lot of people are arguing from the "journalist = forever preotected" angle, I'd rather keep it specific to this guy's case.

hubiestubert:To be clear: he is risking jail for not testifying, not what he has written. He is doing so, supposedly to protect a source, who has been indicted for leaking classified information. Admirable as it may sound, let's not conflate being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify is NOT prosecution for what he has written. It's not the act of writing that has gotten him into a position, but his own actions in regard to a trial and testifying at said trail. He indeed may lose his freedom, but if he does, that's on his own head, and sticking to your principles does sort of have a factor of risk involved. It is an entirely voluntary sort of risk, and an entirely avoidable set of jail time, but he has vowed to not give away his confidential sources, and more power to him for that, but let us not pretend that he is being hounded unmercifully, when he has a very easy out.

Will he risk his good name and reputation? That remains to be seen, but these ARE the risks that investigative journalists take on. He is looking for privilege, and in this case, it has been denied, in regards to national security. You can thank more than just Obama on this particular scene though, since the press has been pretty much rolling over and begging for tummy rubs since 9/11, and while Obama continuing policy to go after those who leak classified material troubles some, it wasn't so much the case when it was Bush simply freezing the press out entirely.

Folks handed the government a LOT of power when it drafted US PATRIOT, and NOW the shoe is on the other foot as a President that folks aren't happy with is using said powers, and reaching back even further into precedent to go after leaks. Perhaps we might want to point fingers a bit at Congress as well as at the DoJ while we're at it. Just a thought.

LasersHurt:If I may be a devil's advocate for a second, does every journalist get full immunity regardless of what they do, solely because they are a journalist? A lot of people are arguing from the "journalist = forever preotected" angle, I'd rather keep it specific to this guy's case.

A list has already been posted. The writer of this article knows full well this isn't in any way new.

the Obama administrations attack on information is a very valid criticism. Not sure why the author feels the need to lie to make that point.

mediablitz:LasersHurt: If I may be a devil's advocate for a second, does every journalist get full immunity regardless of what they do, solely because they are a journalist? A lot of people are arguing from the "journalist = forever preotected" angle, I'd rather keep it specific to this guy's case.

A list has already been posted. The writer of this article knows full well this isn't in any way new.

the Obama administrations attack on information is a very valid criticism. Not sure why the author feels the need to lie to make that point.

You're right, but could you find a more loaded and non-specific way to phrase that? Yeesh.

sprgrss:SphericalTime: WTF? Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?

Because there is no such thing.

It's like people are pig-ignorant about the law and get all their legal facts from half-remembered stoned conversations with their buddies from college. "Nah man, the cops totally have to tell you if they're an undercover cop! Or else it's entrapment."

tenpoundsofcheese:I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Generic Republican:tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Generic Republican:tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

Nah, that's his new thing now. He's a Super Liberal. Who just happens to hate everything about the President, or anything that Democrats hold dear...

The Numbers:vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

The Numbers:vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

The Numbers:vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

Sure. Because that means EVERYTHING has to change, even the good stuff and stuff he can't control.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place. These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime... if we catch someone giving troop locations and tactical information to Al Qaeda, by all means, charge them. If we catch someone giving nuclear weapon schematics to Iran or Syria, by all means, charge them with Treason. That said, no, the release of the Nixon Tapes or the Vietnam Papers, or even Snowden's release about NSA Domestic Spying... that's not Treason.

tenpoundsofcheese:Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:- must be a paid troll- he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll- there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.

muck4doo:tenpoundsofcheese: Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:- must be a paid troll- he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll- there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.

Forget it. You didn't pass someones "purity" test.

Then what was the point of the ball-gag at all... they told him it was a purity test.

mediablitz:The Numbers: vernonFL: nmrsnr: There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

[i301.photobucket.com image 450x385]

Thankfully Obama never ran under a banner of change, or he'd be looking pretty stupid...

So you think by "change" he meant change long standing SCOTUS rulings?

Really? That's the "argument" your going with?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.

hubiestubert:Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

Nah, that's his new thing now. He's a Super Liberal. Who just happens to hate everything about the President, or anything that Democrats hold dear...

firefly212:vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place. These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime. ...

Did you miss the "classified information" part of your definition, or are you asserting that what Snowden leaked was not classified?

Obama's Reptiloid Master:sprgrss: SphericalTime: WTF? Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?

Because there is no such thing.

It's like people are pig-ignorant about the law and get all their legal facts from half-remembered stoned conversations with their buddies from college. "Nah man, the cops totally have to tell you if they're an undercover cop! Or else it's entrapment."

I don't know who is worse, the idiots in jail who read Busted By the Feds or the Farkers with Legal GEDs.